Online Piracy
 

edited out my post.

google, dammit.

http://www.google.com/search?num=50&...%22+statistics

there's a spectacular start. self reliance rules!

What if a person uploaded their entire CD collection to HD. They have not even a single dl'd song. This individual leaves this file open for anyone on kaaza 24/7. Does the RIAA even notice? If they bring charges against said person. Does this defendant have a shut and close case in court? After all, they have purchased all the music on the HD in question. Do they also need receipts to show date of purchase? Or is this all theoretical babble?

a person is allowed a backup copy of their music, but not allowed to distribute those backups to others.

How can a person be responsible for someone's action of taking it without paying the artest? Is that saying both parties are equally at fault? I would think the free-loader has commited the so-called crime. One more thought. Whom of the 2 parties is the RIAA seeking suit against?

edited out my post

karm: by making the files available for others to download, the person who backed up their music is committing a crime.

the person who downloads that music is also committing a crime.

i beleive the riaa targeted those distributing files, as reports were made of people who got tagged having thousands of files available.

The RIAA only goes after open share directories.

What exactly is an openshare directory? BTW Phred, you the man on ti*@y boards! Love the plump stuff.

thankya.

open shared directory are folders on yoru computer that you have designated as open for others to download files from. an example would be your shared files folder in kazaa. people can download anything from that folder they want to if you have enabled it. that means you are now criminally liable for all of those files that you are giving away to others.

What if the music is all remix's or bootleg live stuff. Is that stuff copywrited and protected by law?

if the artist is a member of the riaa and the music was released through official channels, it's illegal.

bootlegs are also illegal.

remixes that are made without permission are also illegal.

to check and see if an artist is a member of the riaa, use the RIAA Radar.

edited out my post

Study: File-Sharing No Threat to Music Sales

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar29.html

If you're interested in throwing some international flavour into your report, you could refer to the recent ruling that made P2P sharing legal in Canada:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/print/2004...ad_court040331

Here are a few more things to help you out:

http://www.riaaradar.com/ - great site to use in general, but it also has a lot of information as well.

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/ - yet another site with good info about the RIAA and their devious interpretations of data regarding music downloading and its effects on CD sales

and an article...
Music industry way off track with song and dance about falling sales
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...412234274.html

edited out my post

never have shared files on P2P services but no in way in hell would I do it now, as 90% of my newer files are rather large lossless files (FLAC with some older APE files) and a small percentage of MP4s from CDs that I own.
Most of my sources are vinyls so lossy codecs are out of the question for archiving.

This is true in the US of A.

In Canada, according to this article, downloading music over P2P networks is perfectly legal. Just recently, according to this article, a court ruling declared that sharing files on a P2P network is insufficient grounds to compel discovery. In other words, sharing files on KaZaA is not even strong enough evidence for the CRIA (our equivalent of the RIAA) to force my ISP to reveal my identity. Of course, they're trying to appeal the decision, according to this article . We'll see how that goes...

Most importantly:

Filesharing copyrighted material IS NOT PIRACY. It is not theft. It is copyright infringement. This should be a major point in your argument; that the RIAA and other industries have used buzzwords to change the perception of what filesharing is and is not. Filesharing is a constitutionally protected form of free speech; filesharing copyrighted material is considered "commercial speech" and is therefore subject to restrictions. Check out the filesharing court case involving Verizon ("Verizon I" and "Verizon II") for more info on the difference between political and commercial free speech.

But the biggest thing is this; copyright infringement is not piracy, nor is it theft. You could probably write a damn good paper on just that.